Vista Business, very interesting. Thanks.

Volume License Keys are now different & will require re-activation every 180 days (6 months for those that can't do math).

But no worries, china's already set up a whole bunch of fake activation servers anyway
Haahahaahhaa!

Try here to do a comparison and systems check.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...fault.mspx#EOB

Well I have VISTA Ultimate as an official beta tester - yes it does take more RAM, but let's not over do it. Even Windows XP freshly installed is bloat - If you eliminate the services you don't require, and there tons you don't really need, you can save an extra 50-80MB of RAM - you are not FORCED to use all the effects and interface, you can disable them and revert to the classic windows display and it will run just fine without the latest hardware. I tested VISTA on my AThlon 64 3200+ w 1GB of RAM and it ran just fine. I still had 750-800MB free when vista was loaded so it's not that bad. Rumours running around that you need a dual core is bullshit, it worked just fine with my single core Athlon 64. Did it run slower compared to my XP, NOT AT ALL, quite the opposite as a matter of fact. I have run some benchmarks to compare memory access/transfers, disk access, CPU, etc.........and the VISTA scores were better, sometimes with a great margin - For example disk transfer, they really optimised the drivers - In HD tach I would get bursts of 120-125MB/s compared to <110MB/s in XP Pro. Applications load faster and the games I tested also ran smoothly, I noticed little improvement in DX9 game performance. So it's not all that bad - I find it a waste to use all your resources on the Aero and on the bloody interface, I rather spend those resources on my apps and games - Nonetheless VISTA worked fine on my GeForce 7800GS/OC from BFG, quite amazingly smooth.

I would advise people to stick to XP for now, or if you do get vista, install as a secondary OS with dual boot.

Tell me all about it, once you've got a HD-DVD/bluray movie

I always have waited at least four years after M$ releases a new OS before I consider upgrading to it. So Vista, ~maybe~ sometime in 2011, only if Win2K Pro can no longer run anything. (By then the DRM BS may be under control.) I also drive a 1985 Mazda, purchased new in January 1985, and still in very fine shape - because I do all my own maintenance on it. Runs and handles better than my "new" cars.

Apple DOS 3.3 -> MSDOS 3.30 -> WfWg 3.11 -> Win98SE -> Win2K -> ?

Shamu

A fresh XP install takes about 70 Megs, that's less than 25% of what the new fat kid does... pathetic really , so much so they had to come up with the ReadyBoost trick (which incidentally doesn't work with half of the USB sticks around). And how many average users are going to turn off services? They'll have trouble enough finding their own stuff in there to start with (even with the new & improved Search). Upgrading to Vista is as necessary as going on a skiing trip .

Here is an interesting feature comparison of the Vista packages that we will commonly be purchasing.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3672_7-...1.html?tag=txt

Buy the upgrade version, not the full version.

There is already a workaround that let's you install a clean copy of the upgrade version:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932

When XP was the new fat kid in 01 you could have considered it in exactly the same light. If you take into account hardware progression and natural OS progression from then til now - Vista is well under the specs you would anticipate - by a long shot. Whilst I agree upgrading to Vista is not necessary - if you want it, can afford it then why the hell be afraid?

Readyboost is an excellent idea in theory and I have no complaints of its performance on my cheap generic 1G Flashdrive.

Cressida you simply sound like a whinge. Worst of all you sound like a whinge about something you very obviously have no or little first hand experience with. I would suggest maybe you write a blog on the evils of Vista and how Bill Gates is the Devil to post alongside the other 46 million of them.

The minimum system requirements for vista seem rather negligible, given the hype

I remember WinXP took up 650-700MB on my (then) 13GB HD ... which was maybe 1/20th.

Now ... Vista takes 3GB? Out of a 320GB & 2x160GB HD's .... by my calc, that's less than 1/100th .. and less than 1/200th of my total HD space
The relative size of the OS has SHRUNK!

Does anyone seriously still not have 1GB of Ram, and a semi decent video card?
Anyone that is even slightly nerdy has AT LEAST 1GB (I've had 1GB for over 3 years now: ). I've been putting off an upgrade to 2GB, solely because I don't want to invest in obsolete DDR technology

Similarly, the problem with video cards is a moot one. Anyone that updates to Vista will likely get a new video card with their new PC anyway, or calculate the cost into the upgrade ... OEM version maybe with their new VC? At any rate, it's only the Aero eyecandy interface that has the high Video requirements. Deal with it!

The only REAL gripe with Vista is the DRM .... and to date, the only DRM that's really been mentioned is for HD video.

People .. get over it! I am seriously sick of hearing that Vista has high system requirements. Many people report vista working fine on significantly less than 1GB of ram, on 3000+ Cpu's.

If you have to whinge ... whinge about the DRM. And don't whinge on the forum, whinge to MS & the Corps that are forcing MS to implement it. We don't want to hear it ... unless you're providing the link to the petition!

Depends on the Version. Retail Ultimate is 6G plus factoring in Shadow Copy - say 10G (disabling it is the best tweak you can perform on Ultimate). But yes I here what your saying Debro and agree.

Shadow copy to a storage (aka non-main) drive possible?

So do I, If you don't like windows or microsoft use linux or some other OS and stop whingeing

@pollushon - Both W2K and XP have the same minimum RAM requirement. I wouldn't call an 800% increase well under anticipation. FYI, I've used Vista from Beta2 to RC2 pre-RTM. By all means, enjoy your "Wow!" it's new I've got to have it Vista, but please don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know anything about.

Alas no. Shadow Copy on Vista is exactly te same as Server 2K3 - its on or its off - no settings available. Unlike Server though Vista users will make tonnes more changes more often and end up filling their drives with Previous Versions

I clocked up 42G (OS only no apps installed) the first time I dicked around with the RTM version.

@Cressida - I've been a beta tester for quite a while (my NDA is over - WOOT!) so its not all 'wow Vista is here'. As for the recommended RAM Requirements back in 2001 I quote Microsoft:

For 2000 (2000): 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum.

For XP (2001): 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features).

So realistically we're looking at the same thing. Vista will run fine on 512Mb of RAM but it 'may limit performance and some features'. Keep n mind back in 2001 256Mb SDRAM was huge and expensive. Comparatively 2G of DDR2 is Huge but not so expensive these days. The Math is undeniable.

The exact day I will buy Microsoft Windows Vista is the day when a somewhat slower NVidia 8xxx board by Gigabyte is available for only €129,-, since I'm not at all a gamer but want DirectX10 GPU for Vista on the other hand and it's my personal price max. for a GPU.

no and no and no and noway and not today not next week not even on a new computer if I buy one. the answer is not